Submissions have been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
As it is written: Wednesday is mailbag day …
• Here are the latest installments of the Served with Andy Roddick podcast: A draw preview for Wimbledon and some scattered early-round thoughts.
• Your good soldiering reminder that Tennis Channel is doing a six-hour show following last ball … Brett Haber, Lindsay Davenport and Jim Courier in one studio … Martina Navratilova, Steve Weissman and me in another.
Onward …
There were many questions this week revolving around the protocol for injury withdrawals. This, of course, after a welter of players—most notably Andy Murray, Aryna Sabalenka and Victoria Azarenka—pulled out of Wimbledon with various injuries after the draw came out.
Really, this is much ado about nothing. Players, understandably, want to give themselves every opportunity to compete and win despite injury. As long as there is a non-zero chance of playing and miraculously healing, why concede? If/when players do retire, it’s not as though anyone is being deprived. A lucky loser stands by, waiting in the wings, happily availing themselves of the opportunity to play (and earn over $75,000).
In a perfect world, would Sabalenka have pulled out before the draw so her quarter wouldn’t be deprived of a top-four seed? Sure. But, in a perfect world, a top player doesn’t withdraw with a shoulder injury. In the real world, we’re all good. Let’s pick another issue to attack.
Jon, will Wimbledon go to a Sunday start the way the other majors have? Is there talk of that?
Carlos
• Note that two of the four majors—the French Open, and now this year, the Australian Open—have a Sunday start and wrap around three weekends. The U.S. Open is holding off. Same for Wimbledon.
A few years ago, there was only one Sunday match the entire tournament, the final one. Now we are talking of a third Sunday session?
Seriously, I asked a friend who is a club member about this: “Don’t hold your breath,” he responded. There are various considerations, not least the neighbors … who are already put off by the golf course expansion plans. (Bear in mind that many of the neighbors are club members as well.)
The big priority here is getting clearances and approval to hold the qualifying on-site and develop another show court. Anything that complicates this effort—or calls for additional wheedling and horse trading—is a non-starter.
Jon, what’s the deal with Ben Shelton? I see he is losing again. Overhyped or sophomore slump? Or something else?
Elizabeth, L.A.
• Let’s first note that Shelton came back from a 1–2 set deficit against Mattia Bellucci to advance to the second round at Wimbledon.
Where is Shelton? This falls squarely in that zone between let’s all calm down and don’t insult us. Which is to say, Shelton is doing fine. He is 21 years old. He is a top-15 player. He is learning as he goes. He has lots of athleticism and talent. And, at the same time, it would be naïve to characterize his current run as anything north of disappointing. He lost his opening match at the Stuttgart Open before being bounced in the first round of the Queen’s Club Championships. He ended a drought that extended to the French Open, with a victory in Mallorca, only to then fall to then-No. 289 Paul Jubb in the quarterfinal. Shelton is skipping the Olympics too.
My question about Shelton: How many gears are there? He can blast away, we know that. He has a great serve and tons of power. But can he win by throttling back? Can he win by changing tactics? Can he win with returns?
There’s still a lot of time here. Time to mature. Time to develop more of a tennis cortex. Time to improve shot selection. Look at it this way: He’s gotten to the lip of the top 10 already. Imagine the ceiling when he really masters the sport.
Five LLs [lucky losers] in the men’s draw and four in the women’s … that’s gotta be in some media notes—close to if not an all-time high, no?
Tom, Calif.
• From our friends at the ITF:
It’s the most LLs at Wimbledon since 2018, when there were also nine (seven men, two women) … Also nine (seven men, two women again) in ’10. The last time there were more than nine was 1991—when there were 10 (five men, five women). That’s Wimbledon only though, I haven’t checked other Slams yet …
Jon, this might be a dumb question, but can you please explain to me why players’ rankings are different from their seedings? I see for example that Daria Kasatkina is No. 12 in the WTA rankings but is seeded No. 14 at Wimbledon.
Rodney, London
• No dumb questions here. Sure, the seeds follow the rankings. But the draw cutoffs and seedings are made in advance—mostly because players need time to prepare for travel and schedule. Which is why, say, Hugo Gaston could be ranked 71 but had to qualify for the main draw.
It is less of a time-lapse, but the seeds are made based on the previous week’s ranking, not the current week. In the case of Kasatkina, note that her ranking got a boost from her win in Birmingham over the weekend. By that point, though, the Wimbledon draw had already been made.
As long as you bring her up, keep an eye on Kasatkina in her wide-open pocket of the draw.
I love the money podcast you did with Andy Roddick. I am wondering, though, why tennis agents don’t commission prize money the way agents take a cut of salary in other sports?
Anon
• I suppose the pushback would be tennis prize money is A) truly, earned, and B) set, ie. not eligible for negotiation, the way there would be for a contract or a salary slot.
Also, note that in team sports, contract commissions are usually capped. In the NFL, agents can only make 3%—max—on salary. The commission for endorsement deals and outside income is not capped. I suppose a tennis agent could ask for 3% of prize money. But that seems petty. You would get $30,000 on $1,000,000 of prize money. If I’m an agent I’d say, Keep what you earn. When I bring in a deal, I take 15 or 20%. A $1 million deal netting the agent $150,000 makes everyone happy.
Jon,
I’m not one to bash anyone for incorrect predictions (because predictions are hard), and I can’t blame any prognosticators for occasionally taking fliers on unproven or lower-ranked players making a run (because those sorts of runs happen). But I’m just wondering if you can explain your pick of Lucia Bronzetti to make the Wimbledon semis. Did you literally just pick someone at random to illustrate a theory that someone random will emerge from that quarter? It didn’t seem like that; I read it as a sort of endorsement of Bronzetti’s abilities. So can you explain why you think she might do it? (As I write this, your prediction isn’t wrong!)
Srikanth
• Yes, that was pretty much a random flier—my attempt at A) the Marketa Vondrousova of 2024 (the same Vondrousova who lost in the first round this year) and B) stressing the point that there is a high probability of a low-probability emergence. Bronzetti (currently No. 81) is a fine player, but one who gives little indication of doing much at Wimbledon. Which would also describe last year’s champion at this time.
Jon
Did [Bernard Tomic] quit a challenger event, after being down 1–6, due to a bizarre argument with his girlfriend mid-match?
I thought [Tomic] turned his life around?
Do you have any more context regarding this? What’s going on with Tomic?
Deepak (New York)
• I did not have Bernard Tomic on the bingo card but … Deepak refers to this bizarre incident from last month.
This is one of tennis’ sadder stories. Thirteen (gulp) Wimbledons ago, Tomic, then a teenager, made the quarterfinals of the major as a sui generis player, who lacked much in the way of athleticism, but hit a clean ball and possessed a mean slice. He is now 31, ranked No. 245, and has his own controversies subhead on his Wikipedia page.
I was also struck by his finances. He has made about $6.4 million in prize money for his career. Take, say … three-quarters of that away for taxes, training, travel and Testarossa. Amortized over the 16 years since he turned pro, no one is retiring rich here. For that matter, no one is retiring.
Great news—A film adaptation of the best tennis book I’ve ever read (no disrespect to Venus Envy) that you recommended to us all way back when. It will be great to see Gottfried Von Cramm’s story introduced to so many people.
Cheers,
Matt
• Good intel. Thanks.